new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i commend the gentleman for his efforts. this is directly sandy related. we thank you for your work on this i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan is recognized. mr. runyan: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. -- the amendment is the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. broun: madam chairman i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4

printed in house report 113-1, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. my amendment would strike $13 million in nonemergency funding, national weather services ground readiness project. this founding found in the frelinghuysen amendment is for work that is already under way as part of a yet unfinished state of art weather satellite system. it's my understanding that this particular amount is meant to speed up the preparations needed to get ready the data that will come from these new weather satellites, which is set to be launched two to five years from now. madam chairman, our hearts go out to the victims that are

suffering from the devastation of hurricane sandy. in the wake of large storms like this, governments knee-jerk reaction is often to throw money at forecasting or storm modeling in order to prevent widespread damage in the future. unfortunately, even with the best imaginable system, forecasting systems, we would not have been able to prevent the structural damages which resulted from this particular storm. yet, here we are debating funding for projects due to go online years from now in an emergency supplemental bill, which is meant to provide aid to those who are still suffering in the wake of sandy. fiscal year 2013, the national weather service received a total of $991 million. that's $20 million over their initial request. noaa is expected to ask for

additional funding for this particular project over the next two years, nearly $15 million in fiscal year 2014 and $18 million in fiscal year 2015, the year the first new satellite is due to launch. it is appears that the funding included in the frelinghuysen amendment is simply meant to get the grant portion of this project finished just a little bit faster. madam chairman, i don't wish to argue the merits of this project and ti agree if we have the ability to improve our forecasting infrastructure, we ought to do it, but this is not the time nor the place. the time for this project and other projects like it which are funded in the frelinghuysen amendment is during the normal appropriations process. while i offered seven other amendments to the rules committee, which would have removed similar nonemergency

standing totaling over $300 million, unfortunately, only this amendment made it to the house floor. i'm disappointed that none of my other amendments to cut excessive spending were allowed. i was hopeful at the start of a new congress would usher in a new dedication to cutting wasteful, duplicative and unnecessary spending. unfortunately, it looks like it is business as usual. that said, i'm hopeful this amendment will pass, so this particular appropriation may be considered under regular order as it should. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fattah, two minutes.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: i thank my good friend from new jersey, and i want to say that this amendment would do serious damage to our efforts in terms of the national weather service. in the mark of the house in the senate appropriations bills for f.y. 2013, it improves our forecasting, and what does it mean on the ground? what it means on the ground all across our country, when there is a severe weather incident, means we will have better information for evacuation purposes if needed. it's about $1 million a mile to evacuate and it's about saving lives. when the gentleman who is the maker of this amendment who says he wishes we could do this faster and not oppose todd having better information, i join with him in that part, because this is about providing necessary information to the

american public about severe weather incidents and saving lives. this is money that both the house and senate intended to provide, but in the 112th, we were unable to complete our work. this is vitally important to every single members' districts that the national weather service and the satellite system be upgraded as quickly as possible. we have had the greatest series of severe weather events, over $1 billion each than we have ever had in our history. it is now time for the greatest country in the world and make sure that we have the very best weather information system and this satellite system is important, too. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i hope the gentleman finds waste in other areas, because this is not waste. this is life-saving information

and important throughout our country, the national weather service has this upgrade and something we would have passed any way in the normal appropriations process. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: he just made my point. we all want good satellite weather forecasting. the satellites have already been funded and under way. this project is already under way. it's not emergency spending. we shouldn't have nonemergency spending in an appropriations bill, particularly when we don't have any offsetoffs for this. there is zero reason that this cannot be considered in the normal appropriations process. as my good friend just stated. so my point has been that these types of projects should be considered under regular order and should be considered the way that all funding, except for

emergency funding, should be considered, and that's through the appropriations committee, the regular order, the way we are supposed to be doing things in this house. and this is not one of those. my amendment, if it is passed, is not going to shut down this new weather system. it's not going to ground the satellites. it's not going to ground the ground project. all it's going to do is say we aren't going to put this nonemergency spending in an emergency appropriations bill and we will take it under regular order, as we should. and that's my big point and i appreciate my friend saying we could take it under regular order, as we should be doing. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize my colleague from new jersey, mr. holt, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: this misguided amendment would strike funding for the national weather

service's ground readiness program. that means that weather satellite signals can be collected on the ground and used in operational models and forecasts. this satellite data is critical for forecasting hurricanes. in fact the national weather service used data from these satellites to predict the path and scope of hurricane sandy. this amount, relatively small dollar amount in the overall disaster relief bill, but this is misguided. a recent study showed without the polar satellite data from the weather models, the forecasters would have said sandy would stay out at sea and not hit the mid-atlantic coast and imagine how much worse it would have been? it's hard to overestimate how accurate forecasts are. let's accelerate the program,

not slow it down. it is nonsensical. this is reminiscent of that ludicrous proposal a few years ago that we abolish the national weather service because they are a successful, private, cable weather channel. i urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia has 15 seconds left and the gentleman from new jersey has one minute the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: this is not going to delay data. it's not going to delay the implementation of this new satellite system. the current satellite that was just launched last fall has all the data, receiving capability that it can send out. all this is doing is saying let's wait until the regular appropriations process and i urge passage of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield the

balance of my time to mr. blumenauer from michigan. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and the gentleman misses the point. mr. holt pointed out that being able to process this ground-based information is important to be able to fully utilize the information from the pole a ar satellite. the last congress behaved recklessly in terms of jeopardizing the flow of this information. it was not treated appropriately in terms of the budget. i think that this is an opportunity to accelerate in a small way something that is an emergency. tell the people who have been faced with the chain of natural disasters and storms where we have been able to refine our predictions. we can't stop the weather, but we can save lives and this will get us back on track a little bit.

i cannot imagine a more misguided offset, if anything, we should be ack set rating this -- accelerating this work more. i strongly urge its rejection. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. broun: ask for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. duncan: i have an amendment

at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-1 offered by mr. duncan of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. duncan: thank you, madam speaker. this is an $16 trillion is greater than our nation's economy exceeding our g.d.p. and we have on the floor floor toda legislation that calls upon our children and grandchildren even greater burdens of debt.

it's time to end the credit card economics. we simply cannot afford to spend money that we are borrowing from countries like china on-line items we don't need and constitution isn't authorized to spend. my amendment strips one line item out of this bill. this is really low-hanging fruit. the sandy relief effort was increased by $1 million to boost the legal services corporation, massacre aiding as disaster relief and i thought we had a ban on earmarks in this congress. why is a bailout for new york lawyers emergency hurricane relief, even if you believe this is a legitimate government program which i don't, by the way, how can you argue that spending on lawyers is a legitimate emergency spending? let me say again, for $-- we are $16 trillion in debt, we are $16 trillion in debt, america. we simply cannot afford to continue like this. we cannot keep spending on money

we don't have on things we can't afford and all the while sending our children and grandchildren the bill. what part of $16 trillion do you not understand? i hope my colleagues will take this opportunity to start reining in our spending direction. this amendment is a step in that direction. a million dollars is brushed off like a not a lot of money, but let me tell you, a million dollars is a lot of money to the average american. this amendment will the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and we need to take that step. this is a program that shouldn't exist with federal dollars. this program hasn't been re-authorized by the u.s. congress since 198067833 years of unauthorized appropriations, madam speaker. are we going to continue like

it's business as usual? the g.a.o. has criticized l.s.c. over their lack of controls and lack of internal checks, yet we keep throwing money at them. we can't keep doing the same thing and expect anything different. today let's at least not throw more good money after bad by wasting another $1 million on an unauthorized giveaway to attorneys. please support my amendment. it will strip the $1 million if this bill and prevent any emergency spending to pay for attorneys that should be paid for by private citizens aned the private sector. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? mrs. lowey: i rise to claim time

in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognize. mrs. lowey: legal aid offices are facing an increase in needs directly related to sandy the legal corporation assistance is never more important than following a major disaster. since sandy hit, legal aid programs in new york and new jersey have set up recovery hotlines, disaster recovery centers, partnered with other state and local organizations to conduct disaster assistance training and participate in clinics to provide legal counsel to affected communities. local legal services are helping families obtain emergency food stamps, disaster-related unemployment insurance benefits and fema benefits to pay for rent and other expenses. the funding this amendment proposes -- proposes to

eliminate would enable local organizations to purchase needed mobile resources and equipment and hire the coordinators they need to manage volunteers. the $1 million this amendment would strike is a small amount relative to all the other disaster relief efforts in the bill but will have a disproportionately large inpact on the lives of low income americans it will help. i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. duncan: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. frelinghuysen -- mr. frelinghuysen: people that have been displaced in the northeast, a lot of people who lost their apartments and houses

and that don't have money to hire lawyers. and their conditions are such, they've lost everything that they have, their opotions, their apartments, the houses that they've invested in throughout their lives. many of these people do not have the financial means to protect their interests. i think this -- i know people have a hate on for the legal services corporation of america. but at a time when people are in such desperate straits and misery to deny the poorest of the poor recourse when in fact people can be taking advantage of them or they're looking for some sort of a food -- some sort of food and shelter and seeking legal counsel to make sure that they can protect their rights and their families, you know, i'm opposed to this amendment. i think for good reason.

and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. lowey: i yield the remaining time to mr. joe serrano of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. serrano: let me just say that your comments once again sir are right on target. this is one of those amendments that simply strikes out at a government agency not realizing the harm it causes on the people. the impact is particularly severe for low income families. individuals who are unable to afford the kind of legal assistance they might need to help them recover. to send -- to sandy, legal aid programs have been on the front lines of disaster assistance and they will be providing legal assistance for sandy's victims for years to come. they've been dealing with fema assistance, with snap benefits, with unemployment benefit arkse long with legal issues related to housing problems. but the need for legal

assistance will not end there. in future months and perhaps even year, cases involving fema appeals, bankruptcy, fair housing and public housing issues will arise. contractor fraud scams will proliferate as sandy victims start receiving cash payments from insurance proceeds and housing repair grants. legal aid programs will be called on to provide help and more than ever now, we need this kind of assistance. what's interesting about this amendment is it's not an amendment really directed at the funding as much as it is at the whole legal services corporation. it's an attempt to attack an agency that stands up for those who can't defend themselves. this is interestingly enough, this was richard nixon's pilot program he believed at that time, as many have after him, that the poor needed a way to defend themselves in our courts. so to go after this funding is

not to go after $1 million. let's be honest. it's to go after the corporation. it's ill-timed, it is wrong, it is unfair, we should reject it by a majority, if not a unanimous, vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from -- the gentlelady -- the gentlelady's time has expired for the amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. duncan: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina will be postponed. it is now in order to consider

amendment number six printed in part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: madam chair, i offer the amendment on behalf of my friend, mr. campbell, and myself. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed in part c of house report 113-1. offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. mr. blumenauer: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer and a member opposed each will control five minute. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i rise in support of this amendment. i must acknowledge the collaboration and support of my good friend and the co-spon or of the amendment, mr. campbell from kale. the amendment is -- from california. the amendment is a simple clarification to ensure the free i think -- frelinghuysen amendment doesn't put tax pay thornse hook for 100% of the

cost of projects that are unrelated to hurricane sandy. the amendment waives the standard local cost share for what -- for, quote, ongoing construction projects. this applies to peach renourishment projects which are typically cost shared at a 65% federal, 35% local shear. while the waiving of this local cost share for this type of pradget is uns predent, i understand that for our friends in new jersey, new york, and connecticut, hurricane sandy was also unprecedented. our amendment does not change the language with respect to repairing the beaches damaged by hurricane sandy. but unfortunately, the language could be interpreted to also waive local cost share for future periodic beach

replenishment unrelated to any damage caused by hurricane sandy. these typically can take up to over a 50-year period and cans to the tens of millions of dollars. i'm confident that's not what was intended by the amendment as it was offered. but the amendment is necessary to make sure that that's not how it's interpreted at some point in the future. madam chair, my heart goes out to the communities in the northeast that have been devastated by hurricane sandy. i have strongly supported the efforts of the people in the region to step forward and be fully compensated to be able to have a robust package. i'm sorry it's delayed. i commend the leadership that's been displayed on both sides of the aisle. i strongly support having the federal government provide assistance for people not only to recover but to rebuild in a way that's stronger an safe. but it does not make sense to

use this legislation to change standard, nonfederal cost share procedures for projects unrelated to hurricane sandy. doing so i think, would be fiscally irresponsible, decreases local communities' involvements in local projects that primarily benefit them and might be a reason for opposition for legislation that i hope passes. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i want to thank mr. blumenauer and mr. campbell for their recommendation -- the chair: does the gentleman seek time in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: no. if the gentleman would yield. mr. blumenauer: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman. the chair: for how long? mr. blumenauer: 30 seconds.

mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for this clarification and i'm happy to accept it. >> we also accept the amendment. mr. blumenauer: madam chair, i deeply appreciate the hard work and acceptance of the amendment. i look forward to moving forward with the passage of this and i yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. ayes ayes -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number seven printed in part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i have -- ms. velazquez: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number seven offered by ms. velazquez of new york. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. velazquez: i rise to engage the chairman in a colloquy. hurricane sandy have left a lasting impact on new york. the storm surge and gulf, low-lying housing including a development in my district, floating bamentses, common areas and apartments. these areas remained submerged for days, cutting off essential services. after the water receded, toxic mold spread quickly. mold and mildew infestation can pose serious health risks if not addressed in a timely manner. if left untreated, residents and

workers are at risk of developing respiratory illnesses or infections. without providing emergency funding specifically for this purpose there is serious concern among residents that calls for more remediation -- that calls for more remediation will go unanswered. i hope that going forward we can work together to ensure that the final bill addresses contamination in public housing. mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentlewoman yield? removing mold is critical to restoring the lives and livelihoods of new yorkers, new jerseyans and those in connecticut living in public housing affected by the storm. we will work to see that in the final bill funding is made available for mold abatement and we thank you for your focus on this very important issue that often escapes public notice unless you are directly affected. i want to commend you for that.

ms. velazquez: i'm grar grateful to the chairman. the success of our response to this tragedy hinges on helping residents rehas been the structures they call home. it is important to take the steps necessary to provide housing for new yorkers and other residents in new jersey and connecticut are made available. i want to thank you and i withdraw my amendment. the chair: the gentlelady withdraws her amendment. ms. velazquez: i yield back. the chair: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 of house report part c, 113-1. mr. huelskamp: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report part c 1 -1 offered by mr. huelskamp of

kansas. the chair: the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: my amendment seeks to ensure maximum transparency in a process which will see billions of taxpayer dollars distributed through fema grants. while i appreciate that a provision was included that requires disclosure of grants over $1 million we need to do even more and my amendment strikes the $threshold for disclosure and details of all grants distributed under fema to be disclosed. recently, a town in california was the subject of a fema inspector general investigation. the fema i.g. found that they received $830,000 following a recent flood and the town in question spent all the grant money and requested reimbursement money.

among the inappropriate expenditures had nothing to do with equipment and come tuters, telephones and lamps and a microwave. fema rejected the claim finding these outside the scope of the flood as well as outside the terms of the grant. while i commend fema for catching this attempted fraud, the volume of grants that will come as a result of sandy requires maximum transparency in the beginning of the process. let me give you one other example. d.h.s. report, i quote, following hurricanes katrina and rita and other disasters up to december 31, 2010, fema distributed $8 billion some of which were later determined to be inappropriately paid to individuals who were ineligible.

fema relaxed its internal controls to provide expeditededlyry of grants. the relaxed internal controls involved improper payment of as much as $621 million to 167,488 recipients. according to the report, fema has tried to recoup the improper payments, but spent $7.3 million to collect them, costing the taxpayers a net of $6 million. why repeat a process like this if we can avoid it. the paperwork is already being done and already being recorded on a computer in fema and procedures are in place that can bring forward this information. this amendment will have no budgetary impact and does not create an undue burden to create the list public in an untimely

fashion. start this in the beginning process to help root out waste and fraud. mr. frelinghuysen: i want to thank the gentleman from kansas for putting forward this amendment and i'm pleased to accept it. i want to assure you in both the rogers' bill and my bill, we have plenty of transparency and have lots of reports and i think your added protections of the taxpayer dollars are very much in order. and i thank you for yielding to me. mr. huelskamp: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in part c of house report 113-1.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. fleming: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. i also have unanimous consent for a technical correction for that amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part c of house report 113-1, offered by mr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: madam chairman -- i ask for unanimous consent the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: technical correction offered by the amendment by mr. fleming of louisiana.

on page 28, line 7, strike steward and insert stewart. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the amendment is modified and the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. mr. fleming: thank you. my amendment to the frelinghuysen amendment will strike $9.8 million of spending on building of seawalls on uninhabited islands. the stewart mckinney receive few is 10 separate units that cross the connecticut shoreline. my amendment addresses the request of the fish and wildlife service to spend nearly $10 million to rebuild buildings and seawall known as the outer island. they acquired the property through a private donation. since that time since a

memorandum of understanding, the island has been managed by the southern connecticut state university who provides access and guided educational activities to visiting school groups during the summer months which is the only time outer island is actually open. the connecticut state university web site is clear that, quote, all schools and civic associations or other parties interested in participating in jealal activities on outer island, must, underline must, have prior approval. while the fish and wildlife service has no staff on outer island, the university uses interns to supervise the educational program. and occasional person may stop and have lunch. but if you want to visit, you must coordinate your visit with the university and not the fish and wildlife service. in addition, the university

received a $250,000 grant from the long island sound fund. last friday, members of my staff met with representatives of the fish and wildlife service. the service has confirmed that they do not charge the university for what amounts to almost exclusive use of the island. furthermore, the service did not provide at any time, any analysis or breakdown on how they will spend $9.8 million of our taxpayer money. in fact, the only information they provided was a one-line explanation that the money will be used to remove debris depositted by storm floodwaters, repair seawalls and building. as the chairman of the subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife oceans, my subcommittee has jurisdiction over the fish and wildlife service. i intend to conduct an annual budget hearing in march of this year. this request does not belong in an emergency spending bill and the money would not be

appropriated until we get a better understanding or should not be appropriated until we get a better understanding of how the $9.8 million will be spent. i'm interested in hearing why this service does not charge the university for using the island and why they should not be assessed a portion of the repair costs which benefits them far more than the general public or certainly the taxpayers of the united states. i urge an aye vote on this and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to a misguided amendment and aims to cut funding that would help repair the seawalls and research buildings damaged during

superstorm sandy. this is a vindictive amendment that slashes disaster relief for one particular estate and i urge its defeat. named after the former republican congressman from my state, the refuge spans 70 miles of connecticut shoreline and 800 acres of island habitat, a beach and tidal wetlands. one of the more remarkable aspects is a chain of seven islands along the coast. the island supports habitat for several endangered species and hosts research facilities. the islands are key stops for birds migrating and two of them have been named important bird areas by the national augdobon society and they are in close

proximity. all of them sustained damage during superstorm sandy. the storm damaged the education building on the outer island research station, which is also the most visited island. as a result, the natural resources on outer island cannot be currently or properly managed. on outer island, the lack of repairs will have serious environmental consequences. if the seawall isn't repaired, erosion will undermine the building dislodge the septic tank and cause significant contamination and lead to major repair costs. we need to have disaster aid so they can recover from this storm just as we have many times in the past for other refuges affected by disasters. let me give you some examples. after hurricane katrina,

hurricane ike, we appropriated $71 million for wildlife refuges in texas, $20 million in mississippi, and $74 for refuges in louisiana. the sponsor of this amendment's home state. one of the central responsibilities of this institution is to act on behalf of the american people whenever a major disaster occurs. federal disaster relief is meant to restore homes, businesses and communities and federal facilities to pre-disaster conditions. we do this whether it's a fire in the west, a tornado in the south or a hurricane in the northeast. there is no good reason to make an exception of the mckinney refuge here. the sponsor of this amendment has argued that this includes $9.8 million solely to repair the damage on the outer islands.

this is not true. fish and wildlife required repairs for the mckinney refuge including $2 million. the rest of the funds would support repairs all along of 70 miles. by cutting the funding needed to rebuild the connecticut coastline, this amendment prevents the mckinney refuge from meeting its federal commitment to provide education and outdoor recreation for the public and unfairly singles out connecticut and the protected wildlife along our shores. as a state and refuge somehow unworthy of federal support? it's a terrible precedent for disaster aid, when these disasters occur, we have always come together as a nation of americans, just as we did after katrina and andrew and irene and we should not change that now. i urge my colleagues to reject

what i view as a terrible amendment. help the mckinney refuge to rebuild from this storm. the chair: members are reminded not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. fleming: i thank you, madam chairman. the gentlelady is correct, after we got more information on this, the nearly $10 million is actually only $2 million when it comes to the outer island. however the gentlelady is incorrect. the university informed us that the vast amount of damage came from hurricane irene and not from sandy. as to the other $8 million. it goes to about six different islands that are rarely, if ever touched by humans and is for coastline restoration. what you have is basically $10 million, $2 million of which is to repair damage from a previous hurricane, of which there has

not been a request and un inhabitable island and then the rest of the islands are virtually never touched or used. this is an emergency bill. there is no emergency here. and whatever dollars we use are going to be borrowed from china and put onto the debt. so as a result of that, this is not -- this does not fit the definition any way shape or form of fitting an emergency. i would suggest to the chamber today that we focus on the emergency. there are a lot of people hurting with this disaster and we should put our money where it needs to be. we could go through regular order through my subcommittee and address all the work that needs to go on here and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady still has 25 seconds. ms. delauro: four or five? the chair: 45. ms. delauro: i want to say to my

colleague -- and quite frankly i don't recall if you were here or not here during the extensive debates that we had on this floor as it regarded hurricane katrina in 2005, hurricane ike in 2008, $71 million for wildlife refuges in texas. $20 million for refuges in mississippi and $24 million in louisiana. let me just tell you, we have laid out what the difficulties are and in what kind -- is damage this will cause to the outer islands and what will happen to contamination in the area and coast along our connecticut coastline. it is amazing to me, amazing to me that we find it necessary to

ask for -- the chair: the gentleman from the gentleman has 30 seconds left. mr. fleming: i have to say unfortunately it's our grandchildren being held hostage. now they have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, each, in future debt, from the spending we do today. needless to say, we need to take care of the problem and take care of the emergency and take care of the people who are hurt. but for heaven's sake we should not be spending money restoring coastlines on islands that nobody ever goes to. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expire the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana as modified. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agree tosmed

mr. fleming: i request a recorded -- a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed this part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. benishek: i'd like to support the amendment. the chair: does the gentleman have an amendment at the desk? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part c of house report 113-1, offered by mr. benishek of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. benishek: madam speaker, like all my colleagues, i come before you today concerned about

my fellow americans' lives that were torn apart in october of 2012 due to the impact of hurricane sandy. hurricane sandy, like many natural disasters before us, has caused billions of dollars in damage and has upended the lives of thousands of americans. congress gathers here today to consider a very important question. exactly what is the roll of the -- role of the federal government in rebuilding our communities following a natural disaster. like many of my colleagues, i believe the federal government must be a strong partner in responding to natural disasters. local communities must lead the way in making the important decisions. only local communities have the firsthand knowledge to prioritize how precious resources should be spent following a natural caster. while the federal government can and should be a partner, it must be just that, a partner. the federal government currently plains head and budgets for natural disasters. we have an entire agency, fema, dedicated to managing these

disasters. perhaps congress should have a more comprehensive discussion on how to better budget and prepare for natural disasters. we can't use one hurricane as an excuse to fund or enhance programs that would normally go through the regular appropriations process. local communities and -- community and property owners impacted by hurricane sandy face tough choices. they must prioritize and decide what projects will be rebuilt and in which order. one of the provisions in the underlying frelinghuysen amendment provides for an additional $50 million in grants from historic preservation fund for necessary expenses related to the consequence of hurricane sandy. currently, these types of grants typically require a nonfederal match. the frelinghuysen amendment strikes the nonfederal match requirement for the sandy funds. madam speaker, my amendment would not reduce any of the supplemental fundings provided for in the underlying amendment.

again, the amendment does not reduce the supplemental funding. my amendment simply restores the provision that the nonfederal match be applied as normally required by the national park service. in actual practice, this would make the funds more widely available for a larger number of citizens. my amendment is about good government and good investments. it ensures that local communities have skin in the game and truly support the grants that they apply for. the local community is truly supportive of rebuilding a project, they will band together and find a match, whether it be local municipality, state -- state government, or private nonprofit. i understand those opposed to the amendment will say impacted property owners require emergency funding and that in order to obtain the funds, stake holders should be released of the obligations of a nonfederal match as many are struggling to get by. to this i'd like to remind you our government is still

borrowing over 40 cents for every dollar it spends. just as families must prioritize their budget the federal government must learn to make adjustments. federal grants shouldn't be about having fancy consultants or great grant writers. these programs should come down to one thing, local support for the project. the ability to provide nonfederal match provides community support for those projects. we should no longer waive requirements. this is about good government and ensuring fiscal responsibility now and in the future. it is my hope that you will join me in supporting this amendment to ensure this good guiding principle of good government continues. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from new jersey seek time in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: i seek time in opposition and yield to mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: i thank the

distinguished gentleman from new jersey. for his leadership overall on this bill but particularly for thinking toway the nonfederal match. i'll explain why. i'm sure the gentleman from michigan's effort is well intentioned. but many of the buildings damaged by hurricane sandy were historic structures and their repair will be very expense i. now, your amendment would make it cost prohibitive, mr. benishek, to repair or rebuild these historic structures. the interior department has told us that if the benishek amendment passes, the historic preservation funds will be almost impocket -- almost impossible to spend in the two-year time frame. the regular historic preservation matching requirement is 60 federal, 40 nonfederal,, there is a 60-40 match requirement for states

affected by hurricane sandy, the state preservation offices will not be table match -- to meet the matching requirement. these offices are already struggling financially and have challenges meeting the match under normal circumstances. if they've got the money without the waiver, the $50 million that we provide in this bill would sit in an administrative morass while we tried and then likely failed to spend it. so we would be funding nothing but federal overhead for two years. the language in the frelinghuysen amendment like the senate bill limits historic preservation grant funding to those 10 states that receive the stafford act major disaster declaration. the density of historic structures in sandy-impacted states is higher than any disaster alone. in new york alone, there were

5,600 buildings on the national historic registers that were impacted by sandy. in new jersey and connecticut -- these structures include such well-known sites as the south street sea port museum and the coney island historic district as well as thousands of other structures which while not as well known are no les -- no less important. many private homeowners, businesses and communities take pride in their historic structures. these historic structures bring tourists to their communities. they help generate economic revenue. we should not penalize them as they try to recover from this disaster by making them sacrifice the historic character of their homes, their businesses and their community. i support mr. frelinghuysen's provision of waivers in his amendment for this special cat gore of grants and ask my colleagues to vote against the benishek amendment and i yield back to mr. fre ling hughesen.

hypothe gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. benishek: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. benishek: i want to use the balance of my time to say, $50 million is able to be spent in a larger area with more impact if the spending is done with priorities determined by local contributions. and that is not going to be the best grant writer or the best -- person with the most kecks. it's the communities that come together with their local support that's going to determine how this money is being spent. i think that's just a better way of prioritizing the increase in spending for the his tore expreservation fund in this method. i think we've seen in previous

it's aers where federal money has been just wasted and i think that having community input and community donations ensure that the money will go as far as it can and be put to the most effective use determined by local input. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: let me associate my remarks with mr. moran. we want to commend the gentleman from michigan for wanting to save money. i think in many communities, certainly in the northeast, but i'm sure in your home state, there are certain historical structures that define the very essence of those communities. you refer to the fact that these are to -- the communities supported them in many cases, in many cases it's the nonprofits that are supporting them. and i ask the staff and this is why it's in the bill, when we

looked at katrina relief and all the historic structures that were in that affected area, which was vast, we also provided this window. of course in the northeast we are also focused on our revolutionary past but unless we provide to these nonprofits and to communities, in some cases governmental entities, this waiver, allowing these -- a lot of these historical buildings will be lost forever. i think that time is of the essence. i comment you for what you're trying to do. but i oppose your amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has eblings pyre. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

mr. benishek: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part c of house report 113-1, offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 23, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate your kindness. unlike some of the other amendments, this particular amendment does not reduce the amendment appropriated in the basic underlying bill.

what it does try to say is that the money needs to be used where the money needs to be used. it limits the department of interior and agriculture from using any funds from this emergency appropriation for the purchase of additional federal land. look, in -- when sandy hit, the statue of liberty, ellis island, the governor's island, the morris national park, sagamore hill were not spared. the statue of liberty is closed. it is not open to the public. it is in desperate need of repair. . the money is used for the repair of the federal estate. unfortunately in an effort to try and do that, there was loose language even though it tried to put parameters.

embedded in the language is the phrase, the secretary of interior may transfer to any other account in the department and may expend such funds in a myriad of ways. unfortunately, we were given or made aware of an unofficial wish list, which would actually have used some of the money designed for the repair of this issue to be used for the purchase of property not currently under the control of the federal government. that is the practice we wish to curtail. if you want to buy more federal land, that's the icing on the cake. that should go through regular order. that is not emergency spending. so, with this particular money, it needs to be used where it is necessary. does not prohibit the army corps of engineers or g.a.o. from using certain funds as necessary to prohibit or prohibit any kind of relief.

simply says you are not going to buy extra land with the money that is already identified for the need of repairing what we already own. the national park service has given us lists. it consumes the money that is in that approach. if you decide to allow them the flexibility of purchasing other land, something from this list that is essential has to come off, and that's not right. use this money to make sure we put it where it deserves to be to end the suffering and repair the public property that we already own. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek time? >> i rise in in opposition. >> i oppose this amendment.

mr. moran: there is no attempt by the secretary of the interior or the secretary of agriculture to use the funds made available under the bill or any other federal land grab. however, there are instances when land acquisition can be part of a cost-effective solution to repairing the damage caused by hurricane sandy. for example, we have interior and agricultural facilities in low-lying areas that were destroyed by the hurricane. if either department wants to move any of those facilities to higher ground to protect them from future hurricanes and that higher ground is not owned by the federal government, then the bishop amendment prohibits the secretaries from buying that land. so we go through the whole thing all over again. they make an assessment if this building isn't going to withstand another hurricane, they should be able to move it

to land where it's more appropriate. but you couldn't do it if you have the bishop amendment. we had tidal wetlands that were destroyed that included private lands. under the bishop amendment, these private lands could not be acquired as part of a comprehensive effort to restore these wetlands to their natural condition. the private land owners need us to do that. they can't restore them, but the wetlands need to be restored. so this simply gives the two departments the ability to act in a rational manner to restore the shoreline. the bishop amendment is a solution in search of a problem. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: if i may respond for just a moment. i do appreciate what the gentleman is saying, but i would take issue of the premise upon

which it is made. if there needs to be a change incovenience ue from any kind of federal property and need to go to high ground, those properties need to be identified and needs to go through regular order. emergency funds should not be used to circumvent the process we already have in place, including the preservation of environmental standards simply to do that. here's the bottom line. if you don't accept this amendment -- because the national park service has told us what they will do with this money -- if they are allowed because of some pressure from wherever source to purchase excess land with this money, which of these projects are we going to take off? do you want to go to liberty island and take off the storm drainage cleaning or mold remediation or hazardous debris removal, the removal of storm debris, replacing of water

fountains, the battery park site? the money is identified. this is where it should go. this is the emergency. for heaven's sakes, make the money that is going to be given for an emergency is used to repair what was caused in the emergency. and do not have any loose ends that will circumvent regular order if indeed there needs to be long-term changes of where buildings need to be built, go through the regular order. that's the process we have. that should be the way of doing things. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: i know mr. bishop has been involved in the legislative process long enough to know that process and regular order can be one of the most difficult ways of preventing anything from getting done. and i will not challenge him now

to tell us how many things have been held up that thought they could get through regular order in a reasonable period of time. we have an emergency here. this is urgent to repair these seashores. national parks and national seashores and national wildlife refuges are great assets to our communities. they increase property values and enhance our quality of life. now it's clear that public lands and natural systems that they protect buffer built-up areas from the impact of storms and play a very important role. so we need to restore them. and restoration of these public resources will require a specific targeted strategy. but a prohibition on land acquisition may very well fruss tate the ability to bring back the public value of existing park and refuge lands and meet community needs. where new access points are

needed, which is going to be the case, where small purchases are the best and only means to establish the lost value of damaged habitat, this amendment would preclude the purchase of a single acre that would be needed to re-establish public use. this ties the hands of the professionals who know best how to restore the seashore. this is not a federal land grant, but they need the tools to be able to make small purchases. we aren't talking about a lot of money. we aren't talking about a lot of land, but there will be times when you need to buy a small piece of privately-owned land to get access to a seashore or move it to a more appropriate area. they aren't going to be spend a lot of money. there isn't a lot of money. but the fact is that this, i think, is a deliberate effort to frustrate the ability of people

who have a vision of what the seashore can be once we restore it to its natural habitat, that seems to me that should be a national objective to let this area repair and heal. and taking away this tool is going to frustrate that objective. so i would strongly urge a no vote on the bishop amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: thank you very much. though i appreciate the words of the gentleman from virginia, i have to disagree once again. we have a process the way we do things. this is the exception because of an emergency. the parks department has already identified where they need to spend the money. any authorization that would ask for any kind of acquisition of lands will take away from where the money is already identified to be needed. the hypothetical situation of where some expert at some point

might want to do this to spend money is nice, cute, wonderful. but we have a specific process here. and if, indeed, you need to move an administrative building from point x to point y, wetch a process to go through that. and it should go through the regular order, not be hidden in an emergency expenditure. i'm not cutting any money from this bill. i'm simply saying, spend the money where it was designed to be spent. and there is a loophole in the language here that would allow that to change. that is wrong. do not allow the interior department or the ag department to use a loophole to use money to solve an emergency from the place where it needs to be spent on the emergency. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, with great reluctance, i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. bishop: i'll ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in part c of house report 113-1. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. velazquez: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report c, 113-1 offered by ms. velazquez of new york. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york.

ms. velazquez: mr. chairman, from the revolutionary war to the war in afghanistan we owe a great bit to our servicemen and women. one is internment in national cemeteries which gives them an honorable final resting place. as anyone who has walked through the rows at teamstones at arlington, these cemeteries are hallowed ground and allow us to pay great respect to our men and women but reflect on the cost of defending the very freedoms we enjoy in our daily lives. unfortunately, this burial grounds were not left alone by hurricane sandy. in fact, one national cemetery, new york city's only such cemetery, was heavily damaged by the storm. as the final resting place for more than 20,000 soldiers, who

fought in the revolutionary war, the civil war, the spanish war, korea and vietnam, it spans our nation's military history and is an important reminder of the sacrifices made to defend democracy. at the national cemetery, trees were downed and areas were flooded and many important monday youments were jeopardized and some headstones were pulled out of the ground. to honor those veterans, the cemetery must be well maintained and making these repairs and protecting structures should be a priority for all americans. to do this, the underlying legislation provides $1.1 million to make repairs and renovations. this amendment will provide another $1 million for this purpose and enable those affected veteran cemeteries to take steps to protect sacred

ground. this will help the destruction of grave sites and critical structures that honor our veterans. such an investment will make sure that future generations can visit these memorials and understand the sacrifices of those that came before them. making certain that this memorial stands the test of time is the least we can do for those who gave their lives in service to our nation. ultimately, a nation is truly measured by how it honors its veterans and this amendment does just that. while ensuring that we truly leave no man or no woman behind. with that, i reserve. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm fleeced tore accept your amendment and thank you for invoking the words of abraham lincoln.

>> this amendment increases funding to the national cemetery association account by $1 million, offset by reductions in the s.b.a. disaster loan program. as i understand it, the the gentlewoman from has heard from her constituents that these additional funds are needed to address extensive tree damage in new york and new jersey national cemeteries. v.a. cemeteries, our national shrines are a lasting tribute that commemorate veterans' service and sacrifice. the amendment will ensure that the cemeteries affected by hurricane sandy will be repaired in a quick and efficient manner and i urge all members to support this amendment and i yield back. ms. velazquez: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment

is agreed to. . pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part c of 113-1 in the following order. amendment number 2 by mr. flores of texas. amendment number 4 by mr. broun of georgia. amendment number 5 by mr. duncan of south carolina. amendment number 9 by mr. fleming of louisiana. amendment number 10 by mrs. benishek of michigan. amendment number 11 by mr. bishop of utah. after which the chair shall put the question on amendment number 1 by mr. frelinghuysen of new jersey. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. except that the minimum time on amendment number 1 will be five minutes. -- are. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 113-1 by

the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part c of house report 113-1 offered by mr. flores of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a record rod -- recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: all members voted? any member wish to change their vote?

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 221 and the nays are 197. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on

amendment number 4 printed in part c of house report 113-1 by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-1 offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 206, the nays are 214. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request the for a vorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in 113-1 by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in part c of house report 113-1 offered by mr. duncan of south carolina. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 20 , the nays are 217 -- 202, the nays are 217. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in part c of house report 113-1 offered by the gentleman from louisiana, there policemen, -- mr. fleming, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in part c of house report 113-1 offered by mr. fleming of louisiana as modified.

the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 216, the nays are 205. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part c of house report 113-1 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10

printed in part c of house report 113-1 offered by mr. benishek of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 208, the nays are 212, the motion is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in part c of house report 113-1 by the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in part c of house

report 113-1 offered by mr. bishop of utah. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 223, the nays are 198. the amendment is adopted. the question is on amendment number one, printed in part c of house report 113-1 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: the gentleman -- >> i ask for roll call.

chip the gentleman from new jersey asks -- the chair: the gentleman from new jersey asks for a recorded vote. those favoring taking this vote by a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 228, the nays are 192, the amendment is adopted. being there are no further amendments on the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 152. pursuant to house resolution 23,

reports the same back to the house with sundry amendments. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration bill h.r. 152 and pursuant to house resolution 23, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the priest question is ordered. -- the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole or amendment thereto? if not, the chair will put them engross. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making supplemental appropriationers in fiscal year sending -- ending september 3, 2013, and for other

purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 241 and the nays are 180. without objection, the bill is passed. without objection, a metion -- a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. rogers: i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that the engrossed -- in the engrossment of h.r. 152, the clerk shall reinsert the text on page 1, lines 3 through 6 of the bill after the enacting clause. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mrs. emirson of -- mrs. emerson of missouri for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifest case of approval or disapproval of

proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the chair will entertain requests for one-minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman will suspend. >> mr. speaker, i rise to honor

the 2013 sugar bowl champions, louisville cardinals. from the opening toss the game was destined for greatness. mr. yarmuth: they became the first team to score a touchdown in the first minutes of both halves. against the team arching one turnover and play -- holding every opponent below 30 point they forced tree turnovers to reach the 30 point mark in the first half. teddy bridgewater completed two touchdowns. this proves what the coach has said for year, you doubt charlie strong on field or off, you're in for a surprise. i think it's safe to say that card nation is still on a sugar bowl high.

that was triumph for the university of louisville and for the whole community. for the city, for the university of louisville and for this outstanding cardinal football team i'm proud to honor the sugar bowl champion cardinals. >> will the gentleman yield? to my friend from louisville and the cardinals, congratulations, fantastic for the state of kentucky mr. yarmuth: i thank my colleague very much and i appreciate that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: i want to join in congratulating the university of

louisville on their success. the university of louisville has been a rival of the university of memphis but this past year or so, louisville's basketball coach, rick pitino, was good enough to champion the university of memphis getting into the big east conference. it was support we needed, support we appreciate. the conference isn't quite the same as it was when he did that but it was a good thing to do. we have a good rivalry and i think we need to support our rivals. we hope the rivalry continues for many more years to come. i yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 1928-a and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following member on the part of the house, the united states group of the nato parliamentary

assembly. the clerk: mr. turner of ohio, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to 2 u.s.c. 2003 and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following member on the part of the house to the commission on security and cooperation in europe. the clerk: mr. smith of new jersey, co-chairman. the speaker pro tempore: are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

>> it's an honor -- mr. messer -- mr. messer: it is an honor to stand here today to talk about the threat to our children and grandchildren's economic future. i'm proud to represent an area that was formerly represented by now-govepbor meek pence my constituents work hard, play by the rules and deserve what they earn. they should be able to keep a little more of their paychecks for things like college tuition,

family vacations, or retire just a little bit earlier. but washington is standing in their way. the fundamental question that this congress needs to answer is whether washington should take more than it already does from these hardworking, tax-paying americans. the answer, of course, is no. washington doesn't tax too little, it spends too much. one would hope that since the last congress raised tacks to avoid falling off the fiscal cliff, everyone's attention now would turn to our biggest fiscal problem, the out of control spending, now 24% of our gross domestic product and the explosive growth of entitlements and interest on the debt adding to our more than $16 trillion national debt and pushing us up against the debt ceiling. but remarkably, president obama is now calling for even more taxes, more spending, and more borrowing in return for any future spending controls.

he said yesterday that we can't finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone. simply put, the president got his tax increases in the last congress. it's time for this congress to tackle washington's spending bing. i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from indiana. >> mr. chairman, my message otoday is simple. on too many big items, congress has been kicking the can down the road for years. it's time to supply real leadership on the most pressing challenges we face. this is the only way we can restore trust in congress. we're fast approaching a dead end. the social security trust fund will be bankrupt in 20 years. medicare and medicaid are not on a sustainable path. it is wrong for us to make proppingses to the american people we know we cannot keep. ms. brooks: we must address the drivers of our debt, medicare, medicaid, an social security. not because these programs don't

have merit and certainly not because seniors currently benefiting from them don't deserve with they've been promised. because real leadership isn't about making the easy choice, it's about maybing the right choice. social security and medicare alone account for 36% of our federal spending. and both are going to keep growing because of our aging population. my friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse and while i agree we must do that, we can't tell the american people that cutting and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse alone is enough to tack they will $16 trillion debt. that's not leadership. history shows us that unless we make the hard decisions to implement changes that equal real savings now, it will not happen. we cannot afford to make changes in seven, eight, or nine years. we don't have the luxury of more time. we are in a position to clearly see three obvious opportunities to make real, sustainable changes. first, we know we are

approaching the debt ceiling. second, sequestration will go into effect in two months, and third, funding for the government will expire march 27. these are opportunities to make real changes in spending. i'm excited to be representing indiana's fifth district and i'm ready to get to work. there is no decision, no reason, we need to wait until the 11th hour to start talking about the tough decisions we must make for the future of our country. it is time we commit to saving these important programs. for those who need them -- saving these programs for those who need them and getting our economic house in order for the future generations of my children and my grandchildren, and our clint's children and grandchildren. let this 113th congress that chose to tackle real problems instead of handing them down to our chern. let's embrace solutions that can set us on a path to a more sustainable future. >> my thanks to the dwisht gentlelady.

i now recognize -- mr. messer: i recognize the gentlelady from south bend. my condolences on the national championship game but we welcome you here today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i will remind you on my distinguished colleague from the state of indiana that notre dame was undefeated this year. it was a very successful season. so we'll just put that on the record. thank you, mr. chairman. i am deeply humbled to represent the people of indiana's second congressional district in the united states house of representatives. today i speak for the first time before this chamber and on their behalf. to the hardworking hoosier families in north central indiana, thank you for sending me to washington. i'm eager to work with my colleagues here to make raising a family and sending a child to college a little bit easier. ms. walorski: please know that i will work tirelessly to strengthen the economy so you can employ those who want to work within our community.

to the senior citizens between la port and larue, you can count on my support to restore the american dream and ensure that america's best days are not behind her in the past, who want to work, who want to put our future and our future generations on a solid path. i want to let the people of indiana know that in the coming weeks, they'll hear many assertions in the debate over whether congress should increase the debt ceiling. the people of indiana deserve to hear the truth. the entire nation deserves to hear the truth. the truth is, our national debt is spirling out of control toward $16.5 billion. the truth is that the united states has now run not one, not two, not three, but four consecutive trillion-dollar deficits. the truth is this government is borrowing an unthinkable 46 cents for every dollar it spends. the truth is the share of the

national debt for every family in indiana is a staggering $143,190. for every hoosier it's $52,737. the truth, mr. speaker, is that it's time for us to stop spending money we simply do not have. admiral mike mullen, former chairman of the joint chief of staff has warned us. he said, and i quote, the single biggest threat to our national security is our debt. in order to get our debt under control, we first must completely take care of our spending. as families in indiana's second district and all across the nation, we have to prioritize spending. we have to create budgets and live within our means. so should this congress of the united states. each day that we delay getting our fiscal house in order, we threaten the safety and well being of those we love and care about the most. we threaten the opportunity and promise of future generations by eliminating the resources we

have to invest in infrastructure and education. mr. speaker, as i said earlier, the truth is that it's time for us to stop spending money we simply do not have. as big as our national debt may be, americans have always been able to come together and solve big pobs. i thank the good people of wrin for electing me to listen to their needs and bring good hoosier common sense to washington. i look forward to working on their behalf in this congress and to tackle our most serious issues. ladies and gentlemen, the clock is ticking. let's get to work. i yield back to my honorable colleague in the state of indiana. mr. messer: thank you. i say with great pride, honorable colleague, that we do it better in indiana. i worked with then-state representative walorski and governor daniels as a member of indiana's general assembly to help bass indiana's balanced budget and turned a $6 billion deficit to into a $3 billion

surplus in one year without a tax increase. there was no silver bullet, our state's leaders followed a principal most families understand, one shouldn't spend money they don't have. it wasn't always easy but eight years later, we have fewer state government employees since any time since the 1970's yet our state is providing better services. as the governor said, most will be surprised by how much government they don't miss. i yield to the distinguished gentleman from north carolina for your comments today. >> thank you, my good friend from indiana. previous generations -- in previous generationsing serving as a member to have congress was considered an honored profession. they were honored in books like "profiles in courage." sadly we seem to have lost our way. last week, public policy polling found that only 9% of americans

approve of the job that congress is doing. mr. pittenger: in my opinion, the reason no one approves of the job we're doing is that we're not doing our job. our nation is in peril, threatened not by a foreign power but by our own reckless spending. just today, the fitzratings agency warned that our triple-a credit rating is at risk. we are on the verge of squandering everything we have received from previous generations. sadly we are more like i hi to leave the next generation with crushing debt than to pass along the america we love. . may i make a suggestion? starting with the 113th congress, the buck stops here. for too many years congress and the president have received an a in addition but they have seemed to always flunked

subtraction. we must commit to bringing spending in line with revenues, to setting priorities and learning to say no. if we are to be the congress which takes substantive action on deficit reduction, we must start with entitlements. it's the topic everyone is afraid to address. but weren't we elected to show true leadership? today the fitch rating agency warned that our triple-a credit rating is at risk. if an increase in the debt ceiling doesn't also include a credible plan for deficit reduction, the government accountability office has reported that government spending is on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path with entitlements the primary cause. congressional budget office reports that left unchecked, the federal entitlement programs will soon swamp the entire budget. will entitle am reform be messi? yes. is it necessary? yes.

in fact, it's the only way to bring a laughter solution to our nation's fiscal problems. any plan to reform indictments must protect the benefits promised to the current generation. but as we look to the future, we need serious reforms that will reduce spending while preserving these important safety nets for future generations. in 2006 then senator obama said the fact that we are here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. quote-unquote. yet under president obama we've seen record-setting deficit spending and trillions added to our national debt. the leadership failure lies with the president and others in congress who have been unable to say no. our objective is not arbitrary. tax revenues are expected to remain ripe at the historical average of 18% of the g.d.p. we know how much money we'll

make. now we need to sit down at the kitchen table with a calculator and figure out how to live within our means. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. messer: thank you for your comments. i'd like to recognize next my good friend, the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, my friend from indiana. it's good to be here and it's good to get started, i think, on what we've been sent here toad and i think that's the great thing -- to do and i think that's the great thing about us coming together and sharing our freshmen perspective. we've been thrown into a congress which is going to be an interesting time for us all and i appreciate getting together tonight. as we go forward. mr. speaker, i come from the great georgia nine. northeast georgia district is full of mountain values, commonsense. mr. collins: and when we look at the district, i traveled around for almost 18 months, what i kept hearing from people

all along is that they wanted their lives to look ahead to something brighter in the future. and i think right now from an economic perspective, when we look at what's going on, that is what they're most concerned about. they're looking at what they have in the national level and they're looking at our debt, they're looking at our economic and our budget issues. and they're saying, how is this effective? how is this going to be better for my kids and my grand kids? and i thought to myself as i was traveling around and i began to -- when i ran i told my constituents, i said, i run for three reasons. and they were jordan, copelan and cameron. they are my three children. they represent not only my three kids and their future but they represented the kids and the grandkids of the district -- and the nieces and nephews of those that everybody in my district live with. and cared for. because it's their future that we're dealing with here. when we talk about our economics and the problem we're in, this is the area in which we have got to work in

congress. we cannot shirk the duty. we cannot pass it along. they expect us to act. and they expect us to act in a way in which, as we look forward, actually makes a difference in their life. you know, president obama recently told our speaker, he said he doesn't believe we have a debt problem. $16 trillion in the hole and our out of touch commander in chief doesn't think we have a serious problem on our hands. as my friend from north carolina just stated, i'm going to go with the entire quote. and this was said, the fact that we are here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. leadership means the buck stops here. instead washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. i therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase america's debt limit. now as we look at this issue it really amazes me, i want to focus not on the debt issue, i

want to focus on what it says here. that america has a debt problem and it's a failure of leadership. if it's a failure of leadership back in 2006, it must be a catastrophic nightmare at this point. because all we've done is increase it. we've got to do better. we're borrowing almost half of every dollar we spend. if we don't provide serious measures to take care of it, we will leave our country in absolute debacle for our kids and grandchildren and that's simply not a price i'm willing to pay. also our president just recently also talked about not only a debt problem, he doesn't believe we have a spending problem. and i thought to myself, if we don't have a spending problem? but yet one of our colleagues, representative lankford, just stated just the other day, i heard that in 2012 we'll have the third highest revenue year ever in the federal government. third highest. yet we're still discussing the fact that we don't have a spending problem? i'm sorry, mr. president, this is not leadership. this is failure. we cannot continue to give the president and those on the

other side of the aisle a blank check. any discussion of raising a debt ceiling must also include an examination of serious reforms needed to indictment and discretionary spending. when we look at this, on january 2, 2013, president obama stated that we cannot continue to cut our way to prosperity. well, mr. president, on the contrary. we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity either. i think tonight we're starting what i hope will become a regular occurrence. as we look at it, it's what i believe we have to do. and i believe it's about telling our story. and telling why conservative principles mat around how conservative principles, when we explain how we can get debt off their backs, spending under control, then it's freedom for their kids to have a better future. so they can go to college, so they can buy that or start that new business, to employ other people. i believe america's greatest gift was found in the free -- founding the free enterprise system and that's what we can

encourage by getting our own fiscal house in order here tonight. this is a time for us to come together. and i'm pleased to stand with you and the other freshmen here tonight and as we continue to discuss just that we're here to work. we're here to make some hard choices. and realize it's all in america's best interest. i appreciate you letting me be a part of this tonight. mr. messer: thank you, sir. i appreciate you being here. the speaker pro tempore: members reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. messer: ok. thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to next recognize the distinguished gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: mr. chairman, thank you. it's an honor to be here tonight. leanl, i rise in defense -- ladies and gentlemen, i rise in defense of the american people. i believe that we are at a tipping point in our history. i really believe that we're at one of those inflexion points where we will decide our

future. we will decide who we are as a people. we will decide the america that we leave to our children in a way that hasn't been decided before. this is a generational moment. this time is that important. at its heart, i think the debate comes down to this. will we reclaim the moral and fiscal discipline that created the american dream? will we reclaim the moral and the fiscal discipline that created the world's first and the world's greatest middle class? will we reclaim the moral and fiscal discipline that made us as abraham lincoln described us , the last best hope on earth? that is the essence of our challenge. that is the great and defining argument of our day. in this debate, i'd like to

remind all of us of a few critical facts. one of them is that this nation , a nation that is bankrupt, cannot provide for the security of its people. a nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the needy or for the poor among us. a nation that is bankrupt cannot provide for the future of their children. and, yes, during these challenging times it will require a commitment to fairness. it will require a commitment to compassion. it always has. there has always been compassion in this nation. that defines much of who we are. allowing the safety net to continue for those who truly need it. but where is the compassion in allowing a program that like my parents depended upon, in the final years of their lives, to continue down a pathway toward

bankruptcy? where is the compassion in creating so much uncertainty that our own children no longer have faith in their future, nor in the social and safety net that has been there for previous generations? if you believe in compassion and fairness, then help us fix these problems. help us to save them. help us to provide so that we can pass them on to future generations. since the last election, this administration's talked about one thing. and one thing only. and that is taxes. we have had that fight and he has won and he got his tax increase and that will raise between $60 billion and $70 billion. but the last deficit was $1.1 trillion. mr. president, what about the other $1 trillion now? what do we do now? we have a 6% solution. it's a great start, if you like raising taxes. but it doesn't address the problems at all.

my father was an air force pilot. he was a pilot during world war ii. i had the great honor of serving for 14 years as an air force pilot as well and if there's one thing i learned from my father and those brave women and men that i served with, it is courage. always to have courage. that is what we need now. that is the only thing that can save us. mr. president, members of this body, let us have the courage to do the right thing, even if that thing proves to be hard. our debt is unsustainable. we talk about saving our nation for our children or our grandchildren, we don't have that long. let us take this step -- the steps to restore financial sanity in this congress, in this day. mr. chairman, thank you for giving these few moments. i yield back to you. mr. messer: thank you. mr. chairman, i thank the distinguished gentleman from utah, appreciate your remarks. mr. chairman, i would next like to recognize the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from

texas. the speaker pro tempore: will the gentleman from texas suspend for one second? members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate your leadership. and what you're doing. my name is roger williams. mr. williams: i am a small business owner for 41 years. i represent congressional district 25 in texas, a great district. i have been meeting payrolls and creating jobs for 41 years and fighting government regulations for that period of time. i must tell you that a time when our national debt is over $16 trillion, more than 5 -- $52,000 for each american, we must restore fiscal sanity in washington. we do this by cutting spending, shrinking the deficit and balancing the budget. you know, as a businessman, when you're not selling your product, you don't raise taxes. i.e. -- and you don't raise prices. you cut spending.

that's where the money is. that's where the cash flow is. and that's what we've got to get to. our nation's economic future is at stake. the federal government current liborios more than 40 cents of every $1 spent. i think we will we all agree it's time to get our fiscal house in order. across this great nation, the families have stretched their hard-earned dollars in order to make it through this struggling economy. the federal government must do the same and must do it now. we're facing a crisis because washington just simply spends too much and wastes too much. as i said, again, families all across this i country, they're not looking to spend more money, they're looking to cut expenses, to meet the problems we all face today. the american people i believe do not support raising the debt. i ran on lower taxes, less government, cut the spending. that's what my district wants. we don't need to raise the debt ceiling without cutting spending at the same time. that's what it's about. that's what we need to create a